ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area Sad story raises a question

At the risk of 'getting political' .... we can't make informed decisions without information. We rely upon the media for that information. Yet, in this instance, we have all manner of irrelevant, emotional, and incorrect mater presented as 'informations.'

Folks, this is a recipe for MORE danger, not less.

230.25 B says about service drops:

(B) Vertical Clearance
Service-drop conductors, where not in excess of 600 volts, nominal, shall have the following minimum clearance from final grade:
(1) 3.0 m (10 ft) - at the electrical service entrance to buildings, also at the lowest point of the drip loop of the building electrical entrance, and above areas or sidewalks accessible only to pedestrians, measured from final grade or other accessible surface only for service-drop cables supported on and cabled together with a grounded bare messenger where the voltage does not exceed 150 volts to ground
(2) 3.7 ill (12 ft) - over residential property and driveways, and those commercial areas not subject to truck traffic where the voltage does not exceed 300 volts to ground
(3) 4.5 ill (15 ft) - for those areas listed in the 3.7-m (12-ft) classification where the voltage exceeds 300 volts to ground
(4) 5.5 m (18 ft) - over public streets, alleys, roads, parking areas subject to truck traffic, driveways on other than residential property, and other land such as cultivated, grazing, forest, and orchard

Based on the above, and just viewing the video, it looks like it's compliant. I do agree that in our jurisdiction anyway the inspector would probably make them put it on a mast a little higher. Not sure how they would justify it other than the code is minimum and the inspector can make it more stringent if local conditions warrant. Such an order to install a mast could be appealed to the building permit appeals board, but the installer would probably just say ok and put it on a mast.

This is a tragedy, but it isn't the installer or the POCO's 'fault.'

Very well said, Reno. It's sad when someone so young dies from something that could have very well been avoided, and this could have been avoided. She had to have been walking on top of the fence or how else could this have happened, hanging out on the roof?

By the way, who here is getting paid between $4 and $7k to install a mast service through the soffit?

Walking on the fence and grabbing the triplex (even if it had bad insulation) is not a likely fatal injury, unless the fall killed her. It was a wooden fence. Where is the fault path?
If this is really electrical in nature I would look for something like energized aluminum siding or something else closer to the ground.

The fault path was probably from 1 wire in her hand to the metal support wire in the triplex.
I agree with several others on this issue that she probably got a shock and fell off the fence.

Since something simple like a fall doesn't "sell newspapers" as well as being electrocuted, something tells me that we'll never hear about any autopsy results or the actual cause of this little girl's death. The media are pretty much always looking for a villain to blame; they hate things that can be considered truely 'accidents'.

I looked at that site again and they are now talking about her hitting that line with a rake. Four foot tall girl, five foot rake, 10 foot power line. She had to work at this and the rake had to be wet or something.

Not sure what can reasonably be expected from a regulatory perspective that could have prevented this. The hazard was properly mitigated from a code perspective. It took a determined effort from the girl to get up there. Why she wanted to do that, we'll never know. A minimally compliant install that is circumvented by unforeseeable circumstances is not negligence, particularly since I would bet the fence was added after the house was built. I read a story once where some guy in California got killed when he took an aluminum pool skimmer and tried to knock a palm frond off a 7200V line that was 20+ feet in the air. He got killed, his estate sued the POCO for allowing a 'dangerous condition' to exist. Never did find out how it turned out, but that, of course, is absurd.

I don't want to sound callous or anything, but this is just another example of the media "sensationalising" a certian story.
I think it is pretty rich for that reporter to ask the nieghbours their opinion and treat it like some sort of a qualified diagnosis.

If you want to portion blame, it falls directly with the owner of the service drop.
As others have said above, home-owners seem to forget that they have a legal responsibility to keep the wiring on their property in a safe condition.

Sure, this is a tragic event, but it could have been easily avoided.

It also raises the question, exactly how high do you have to install a service, to ensure it will never be contacted by anyone or anything?

I might be biased, but IMO, this has nothing to do with the PoCo, to even suggest otherwise, would be merely avoiding ones own personal responsibility.

Perhaps work on the SE requires bringing the meter to panel cable and panel up to current code in this jurisdiction, plus add 2x factor for news exaggeration and we are in the 2 - 3.5 K range which could easily be the new SE cabling, meter can and panel.

Just to turn this on its head, what if this was an underground service that someone hit while augering holes for footings for a new deck?
If we'd have to run the overhead at some ridiculous height, how deep would we have to run the underground?
What about an overhead feeder to the garage?
Would it help things any if we were required to use armored cable for overhead services?